Replying to LO26131 --
>From: "Frank Smits" <frank.smits@lineone.net>
>Don't know this stuff, but it sounds rather obscure to me. If there is
>anything we are learning from looking at organisations through the eyes
>of modern science -and by finding out that INDEED they behave as Living
>Systems, the machine metaphor becomes less and less tenable. Not more. I
>know of very little adaptable (sic!) systems that are well oiled. ..."
Sounds like you agree with one of the themes of Miller's eight year old
article. I mentioned his article in response to the initial question:
"How will the classical style of management either support or collide with
the learning organization? What safeguards of the modern learning
organization must managers have in place to ensure a smooth transition and
guarantee the effective and efficient success of the organization
regardless of size and type?"
I suspect much of the classical style of management (and some of the
Quality process disciplines) tend to clarify and codify past learning's
into the organizations systems and processes, etc. To the extent these
efforts are successful, the organization becomes more efficient and
simpler. In the limit, these efforts toward efficiency may make it more
difficult for the organization to effectively adapt.
Frank Smits also wrote:
>Since the environment in which organisations operate become MORE COMPLEX,
>rather than simpler (because of the sheer amount of interactions -with
>positive and negative feedback loops that are happening!) organisations
>(as in: their processes, etc.) will become MORE COMPLEX and hence less
>controllable (by definition).
Again, I think a tension from classical management is the ongoing effort
to rationalize, simplify and focus the organization's processes, etc. When
successful, classical management (e.g., KISS) limits the complexity of the
organization's enacted environment. And, in turn, this limits the
organization's capacity to perceive and respond to the more complex
external environment.
As an aside, I'm not surprised the Miller paper may sound like obscure
"stuff". The Miller paper starts to address organizational level behavior
while much of the learning organization work seems focused on the learning
of the individuals within the organization. There seems to be precious
little work on the organizaitonal level learning mechanisms.
Doug Merchant
--"Doug Merchant" <dougm@eclipse.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.